Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company Case

The question of whether or not something constitutes discrimination is completely dependant on the evaluators prospective. For example, if you believe that a pre-employment physical is discrimination because it is no ones business what health problems an employee may have. On the other hand, if an employee is hired and continually files claims because of poor general health, insurance premiums rise for all employees. This question is complex and really comes down to the right of the business owner to make business decisions and the right of the individual employee to maintain some personnel privacy. In this paper I will examine the case that was filed against Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company. I will also look at the decision and settlement that was reached in the case. Then I will use utilitarian and deontological considerations to determine if this decision was fair or if the rights of the railroad to protect its business were violated.

According to a Business Insurance article in just a little under a year Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) had about 125 claims filed by employees for carpal tunnel injuries. Roberto Ceniceros (2001, February). Genetic screening faces lawsuits. Business Insurance, 35(8), 1,42. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 68833673). Of these 125 claims BNSF admits to performing genetic testing on thirty of these employees. The same Business Insurance article stated that BNSF wanted to determine whether work-related duties were the sole cause of the injuries or whether the claimants were predisposed to carpal tunnel problems before engaging in the duties, the company stated that they were not trying to reduce its claims costs. Later in that article it states that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claims that basing employment decisions on genetic testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The act, the EEOC says, prohibits employers from seeking disability information not related to an employee’s ability to do his or her job. The agency said in its February 9, 2001 statement that employers may require an employee to submit to a medical exam only if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Any test that purports to predict future disabilities is unlikely to be relevant to an employee’s present ability to perform a job. This case is attempting to set precedence for the future as this type of genetic testing is new and not very widely used.